Reference The Game Group

What do you mean by planning? Do I have every aspect figured out and move everyone towards fitting the template? No. Do I know what the finale will look like? What will be the plot-point and resolution? Absolutely. I long for my finale, it actually is my drive through the story.

 

I find that I always have a 'Finale' in mind, something BIG planned for the end of the arc. Reaching it however, is a different matter.

I recall when @Darth_wanderguard revealed how he waited for about a year before his character's BIG MOMENT at the end of Sith Trials II. That took careful planning and it worked amazingly!! The goal was reached and it created one of the most memorable moments in game. This is a shinning example of 'how it should be done', hence why I am sharing it.

Finales should be planned and if possible, executed. Can they change because a different path is taken? absolutely. A 'Finale' befitting the path taken should always be there, at least that's how I would go about it. The players and the story deserve it.

 

Conclusion? Finale? No, I just have an outline of what it could look like. I have no desire to drive my game towards an ending. I’m just trying to make fun games with fun people for fun times. I don’t see a game without a resolution as a failure. Even the ones that are meant to have endings.

It’s all about the journey, dude.

 

Every journey has its points of interests, a beginning and an end. The good thing is, you can always take it again, or the 'sequel' for that matter.

But yes, I agree with you as well.

 

Big facts, Grey. You’re right. Endings just make me sad sometimes. Like the end of a good show when I know there won’t be anymore episodes...

*eyes the final seasons of Dexter, Fresh Prince, law and Order, and Regular show*

@Sinrebirth ... random but somehow related: thoughts on having entire subplots that never touch the main plot in your game? Like a character completely focused on their own adventure.

 

Wanted to write pretty much THAT, but with a story from The Crossing instead of Wanderguard

 

Sure I do. How else do you want to tell a story? Usually it gets adjusted over time, but I always have a plan for the finale. Also for the midpoint. For all the waypoints of storytelling.

 

WSMC is the first game I’ve ever launched where I actually have a finale in mind, and I’m pretty stoked about it. Hopefully we can reach it, and if it morphs into something else along the way, I’m all good with it. If I can just get to a finale, period, I’ll be ******* ecstatic.

 

So not my current worry but something I thought a lot about over the years.

Killing player characters. What are peoples thoughts on it?

 

My position is only when:
1. The player has put themselves in a position, after understanding the situation, to die.
2. If it honestly serves a narrative purpose.

I think Game of Thrones(though clearly not the first *sheds tear for Wallace and stringer bell from The Wire*) kind of put in this cultural notion that killing characters is good storytelling or that it’s edgy. Some games here have copied that, some video games have decided to go that route, and even movies. For me, killing characters off wantonly doesn’t make the game better or the story compelling. It’s just something to do.

I’ll give an example: If Ahsoka Tano repeatedly fought Darth Sidious and we know that Sidious is a monster and powerful combatant, after a while we as the audience would think “wait, something’s not right here.”

——
All that aside however, here we role play and I don’t know a lot of players that create a character just for them to die. *shrugs*

 

But yeah, I agree with Blu. GoT made killing off compelling characters “cool” to the story’s detriment. By the end of that show, all of my favorite characters were gone and the ones that were left I had little interest in, and my investment in the show was shot. So as long as it serves a good purpose for your story, and isn’t used just strictly for shock value, then go for it.

Edit: And I have created at least one character that I knew would die. It was kinda fun, honestly.

 

WHERES WALLACE, STRING? WHERES WALLACE?

 

Actually I think it depends on the game a lot. The kind of story you tell. The kind of suspense you create. Game of Thrones was a great example.

It begins by shocking us (Eddard Stark), then it takes all security of us (Red Wedding), then it shows nobody is save and the story is unpredictable (Viper vs. Mountain and Purple Wedding) and then? Then it became something else. You felt they were sitting down and realized killing of main cast members was part of the identity of the show so the question was not what is the logical story, but „Who do we kill next“? You saw storylines aimed at killing off characters (Varis especially) which was NOT what they did in the beginning. Eddard Stark was logical and denied the Hollywood logic. It showed the bad guys can win! Varis I knew what was gonna happen the moment he had his first dialogue hinting John might be a better king. Killing became a convention instead of a plot driving element. For games this is a bit different. Truth is players show up to play and not to die. Most of the time at least. I played Maul in Twilight of the force with the intention to see him end finally by the hands of his apprentice Luke Skywalker. So in that case I think it is more than fine to see that happen. Lawbreaker wrote to LordT and me when his AMAZING, celebrated Obi-Wan Kenobi dueled us something like: He gotta die and he gotta die like Obi Wan! So it seems some characters consider it as part of their journey to end. Obi-Wan went out like a damned Boss! Some characters „complete their journey“ by dying. Those characters would be betrayed if you keep them along against players will.

So I guess those were not the ones you ask about, did you? How about really killing off players? Players who do not want to die, but do so? Obviously one has to be very cautious and careful about this. I believe the player and GM build a bond of trust, which is essential to playing. How you are gonna treat players survival is an important element of the game.

A few examples: I really thought player death would be acceptable in CANDLEWOOD, a game set out to be horror. Hell, it’s horror! You know what? No player objected at all. They often praised how great the scenes were. What I felt though was the game itself suffered, because it lost perspectives on the story. It became fewer and fewer people experiencing it. So that did not work as well as expected.

My character in MANCUBS was doomed to die, which was revealed in my very first message by the GM. We never executed it, but I knew she was doomed and therefore I would have even okay with it.

In THE CROSSING I outright executed HS29’s Kurt Roland, POTUS in the finale, only to be executed myself by Fin‘s Sebastian a few posts later. I do not think anybody felt this was anything but the logical and natural progression of the plot. It was what had to happen so to say. The Bad Guys got what they deserved.

THE RECKONING had probably the worst player death of all. Maria Liang had one long storyline of dying, while trying to fulfill her mission as she did it. @TheSithGirly seemed never to even try and save her character. Racing against death was her journey. She won the race and died after fulfilling her mission. Wonderful. Tragic. Tragedy is powerful storytelling.

TWILIGHT OF THE FORCE killed of Leia Skywalker, several NPCs (like Lando, Yoda and Chewbacca) and all Sith but the big bad Darth Zorn (including my Maul, usually by the hand of Darth Zorn ascending to the big bad he isi n the sequel I heard). Sometimes these deaths had great shock value, sometimes they felt like a natural end, sometimes they felt a bit unnecessary. All in all it worked well. But in that kinda story we knew we could not all get out of it, or it would be a weak story.

In in all my dreams i DROWN my primary character Elina got drowned in a bathtub by the main villain Andy Chang. It was not agreed or even hinted by the GM this was a possibility, yet it raised the stakes and had great shock value. I had other characters to play and Elina got resurrected and got her revenge for her murder later on. So amazingly done. Worked. Several other deaths happened later on, all feeling „right“, therefore natural parts of the plot.

The most important thing is I guess it has to feel like this is an event natural to the plot and not for effect (then pls kill an NPC and not a player character) and certainly not for the sake of appearing to be a „deadly GM“. Sometimes the story told is a tragedy, but if it is a journey to an endpoint, it is bad GMing cutting it short by killing the character off. If someone plays an antagonist though he must be aware he might be destined to be killed for the heroes to succeed.

It depends really on the story you tell. I feel that there is NO WAY everyone survives THE SEEKING, but I would feel it is a terrible earth-shaking loss to kill of any of the kids from DARK SUN lightly for shock value. Different games. Different philosophies. I think players in The Seeking are aware they are in danger and that makes the game a thrill-ride.

 

It is the question of the nature your game. There are games where characters have to die, simply because the plot leads to it. I like how @SirakRomar put it, some characters conclude their journey through perishing.

Half of Twilight of the Force wants my character dead. I doubt we are gonna conclude the game with a cup of tea discussing our differences peacefully. The Crossing had death loom over everybody from the beginning, having one team of players hunting another one. I think nobody was surprised when eventually some of them had to go. It can work, but it should be done truly in service of the plot. it should be the nature of the game, not a gimmick or effect. Players deserve your loyalty as a GM (as a GM deserves the loyalty of players, but that is another chapter). They commit time and effort. So if their character dies, it should be because not letting him die would be treacherous to the game.

My 0.02 Euro cents.

 

I have a weird question that I think MAYBE needs it’s own thread or the creation of a Player Group. But I’ll ask here first to see if that is necessary.

This kind of harkens back to the discussion on time passing in a game.

Lets say I make a Soldier and I want to RP them getting stronger over time. But the GM isn’t planning on doing time skips or maybe the GM doesn’t think the game will cover a large amount of time. If I eventually wanted to have a badass soldier who is capable of impressive feats, should I ask the GM before I submit a character sheet if this is possible? Because wouldn’t you otherwise have to just create a badass from the beginning?

 

That's why I always put a Goals section at the end of the character sheet in my games. So that a player and a GM can open a dialogue about things like that from the very beginning. And if there's any conflict with the player's goals for their character and the GM's plan for the game, the GM can let them know and the player can go from there when deciding what kind of character they wanna play.

 

Truth is, we all need to make characters fitting into the game, not the other way around. If someone sets up a spy game my first idea might be to create a Le Carre like character who describes the years of trials and tribulations to become the perfect spook ... but a little bit of a questionable concept if the game was called "24".

I think for a GM it is important to transport this feeling of what your game is gonna be to the players.

Also as a player what is the more interesting character to play? Awesome soldier really in any way thrilling? Or new recruit maybe the better role? But that is another question to ask one day ...

 

Yeah, I guess in the case above you got two different ideas what the game actually is. So the GM is ultimately right of course. The player can only create a character within the framework of the game. So certain options might not be available.

 

I don’t disagree, but should the GM make that clear in the game or should the player have to inquire?

Most games don’t mention even a rough time span of what the game will cover. Even I, the one harping on this the most, didn’t include a rough time length in the OP. After the 2nd or 3rd episode was when it really started to become apparent that time is actively going to be passing in the game.

When it comes to epic war games (128 ABY, EoH, BoP) I always thought of large scale wars taking a long amount of time, like real wars. *shrugs*

 

Dunno, should the player not mention that in his character creation? I would say it is not very common you cover many years in the game, so if not explicitly mentioned or hinted by the GM, the player should not assume the game will cover months or years. It cannot be expected.

When it comes to epic games they usually take a long amount of times to be played, utilize time-jumps and often have multiple installments between their episodes, which characters can use to experience additional training. Usually in such games characters progress over time. I remember in 128 ABY my character grew considerably in power throughout the game. Then again time passed and he spend weeks on Ryloth to be trained in the Sith arts.

 

Hmm... I can see both sides. I think, at a minimum, in whatever games I launch in the future, I will either include in the OP or at least walk it through with the players during the CS submission process. I think Reynardo has the most agreeable plan: asking players what their goals are with the characters. Thanks guys for entertaining my current GM obsession.